Question paper applied operation research ptu

Tsang and Y Communications, the firm that accompanied him during the trial that ended on November 3 also with a hung jury, would not comment on the matter.

Question paper applied operation research ptu

Tsang and Y Communications, the firm that accompanied him during the trial that ended on November 3 also with a hung jury, would not comment on the matter.

When contacted by the Post, Tsao said he turned up to support Tsang as a personal friend, and that this was not a publicity stunt. In the second trial, application was made by the Prosecution to discharge Mr Kiu, a juror from the jury service towards the end of the proceedings.

After listening carefully to submissions from both sides, I allowed the application and indicated that I would give my full reasons. These are my reasons. The court was further informed that Mr To Kit expressed on social media antipathy towards the Prosecution and also to a degree to the Judiciary and that he had made clear his views about the merits of the case.

On the day in question, Mr To Kit was brought into court by one public relations representative, unlike ordinary citizens who had to queue up for seats. In fact, this was not the first time Mr To Kit had come to court.

Given the late stage of the proceedings, the Prosecution applied to the court to exercise its discretion to discharge Mr Kiu only on the basis that there was a potential bias. The House of Lord in Porter v Magill [] 2 AC considered the question of bias in relation to the court generally and approved the test.

In the case of potential bias, the court should consider whether a fair minded and informed observer could conclude that there was a real possibility, or real danger the two being the samethat the tribunal was biased.

Mr To Kit expressed his view on social media regarding the prosecution of the Defendant which counsel for the Defendant had made no attempt to deny. Mr Kiu sought out a known supporter of the Defendant.

In my view, the seeking out of Mr To Kit raised a real possibility that Mr Kiu could not be fair minded in the way that he approached the case. The discharge of Mr Kiu led me at that stage to realise, for the first time, that public relations firm or consultant had been involved in this trial.

In fact, they had been present, constantly in and out of court, throughout the first and the second trial but I was not aware of their identities at the time as every citizen was entitled to observe the proceedings.

At the outset of the second trial, there was legal argument on whether the Defendant was entitled to adduce good character evidence. He had a good reputation then and more importantly he was presumed innocent until proven guilty.

However, the situation changed. Since the Defendant had been convicted, albeit of one count only, he was no longer entitled to have any good character direction from the court.

Had the Defendant decided to introduce good character evidence, the Prosecution would be entitled to introduce evidence in rebuttal. The law on this is clear. Mr Selwyn Yu SC, counsel for the Defendant in the second trial, quite rightly accepted that that was the law and that no such evidence would be adduced on behalf of the Defendant.

Family and friends of any defendant in a criminal trial are perfectly entitled to be present in court to observe the proceedings and to show their support. What is not permitted is for family and friends, or for that matter any other person, to try and exert any influence on the jury.

Jury tampering is not permitted because it undermines the basic foundation of our criminal justice system as that interferes with the due administration of public justice.

Prior to both the first and second trials, the Defendant through his solicitors sought approval from the court to reserve exclusive seats for his family and friends. His request was acceded to by the court. The objective was undoubtedly to inform and impress upon the jury that the Defendant was a good person and had support from people across the whole spectrum of the society.

The Defendant in this case, knowing that good character evidence cannot be introduced from witnesses testifying for the prosecution, had decided to introduce such evidence through the back door. There was of course no direct evidence suggesting the public relations firm or consultant had been engaged by the Defendant himself, the inference however was overwhelming and it would be an affront to common sense to conclude that there was not some consent, acquiescence or involvement by the Defendant.

Had the engagement of public relations firm or consultant been brought to my attention earlier, I might consider discharging the entire jury. In England, there are specific provisions in the Criminal Justice Act which allows judge only trial on indictment where there is a danger of jury tampering.What if I forgot to note my reference Number?

** You will not be able to enquire about your application and you can’t get your admit card, . At least one author of an abstract must be registered for the Congress in order to be included in the abstract book.

One author can present only ONE abstract. Airline chicken Airline chicken can be several things, depending upon who you talk to.

Question paper applied operation research ptu

It can be a fancy cut, a special presentation, or a negative appelation directed at inflight foodservice. # # List of USB ID's # # Maintained by Stephen J. Gowdy # If you have any new entries, please submit them via # grupobittia.com # or send.

Question paper applied operation research ptu

where u · is the utility function used to calculate the person’s utility from the option. Eq. provides a schema for allocating a utility value to option B, given the utility of options A and C, and has come to be known as the ‘standard gamble’.

Jun 16,  · You need Punjab Technical University MBA Applied Operations Research subject model question paper, here I am giving: 1) Define operations research.

Measuring risk-aversion: The challenge - ScienceDirect